Is Irelands neutrality stance in WW2 unfairly criticized? (see Mod note 217)

The USA was slow in joining the war, as it was during WW1, for whatever reasons. But join it, it did. The USA was far from perfect. I remember an old Irish born merchant mariner who served in the war telling me he never saw anything great about the America, and secondly, America was home to the most dangerous ports they visited….and he was all over the world in his time.

You do realise that the USA did not join the war in Europe in WW2 voluntarily. Even after the attack on Pearl harbour the US was careful to go to war only with Japan. The US only entered the war in Europe when Germany declared war on it.

All the criticisms you have made about De Valera and the Irish government could equally be made about all other European countries. Even after the fall of France, countries like USA, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, etc. remained neutral. Sweden provided iron/steel to Germany throughout the war. Finland aligned with Germany against USSR. The one country that could have made a difference at the time was the USA and it remained aloof to any requests from Churchill to enter the war.

But put aside the political issues, which were important and fully understood by the British at the time. Look at it purely militarily. Coming up to the war the British armed forces made it clear that the Treaty ports were only of marginal value if at all. The RAF and Army saw that garrisoning and defending these would be a huge burden. The admiralty varied from wanting the use of the ports to considering them irrelevant. Ireland joining the allies would make her a back door for attack on Britain. And that would require a couple of divisions of troops plus 6-10 squadrons of fighter aircraft just to provide for its' defense. We would have been a burden rather than a help militarily and the British government accepted that at the time.

The Irish government and the UK government were in regular contact during the war and Ireland helped the allies in every way it could as a neutral country. We did not provide iron ore to Germany. We did not align militarily with Germany like Finland. We did not align politically with Germany like Spain. And yet, to this day, Ireland is the only country that is regularly criticised for its neutral stance during WW2. So yes, it is unfairly criticised.

Incidentally, the title Grey held was not just semantics. )And it was me you pointed that out not @FrancieBrady ). The criticism from the British , Churchill especially , was totally related to the constitutional status of ireland at the time, the very status that meant Grey's title was Minister rather than Ambassador. You are aware of Ireland ( contested) status at the time?

No he didn't. He called to Hempel's residence to offer him asylum in Ireland which he took up. There was a rumor spread by the British that he had signed a book of condolence. The article you linked only shows letters reacting to this lie.

I'll post the link again.

Yes, and Roosevelt had to overcome a lot of domestic opposition to save Britain from bankruptcy too. Many Americans would have let Britain fall rather than go to war.

Lots of nuances to counter the picture of Ireland and Dev disturbing world harmony.

Yes we know this. But did it harm Dev for long? Or Ireland?

Leaders since the dawn of time have 'sparked outrage' at times. Look around you.

America was not at war in January 1941,

America, like Britain had allowed Germany to re-arm contrary to the treaty of Versailles.

They both were complicit therefore in the rise of the Nazi's.

A fact overlooked by their sycophants here on boards.ie and elsewhere.

Of course it's 'not the point' because it's an inconvenient truth for US - British sycophants.

Devalera was dead right not to get us involved in a war caused in no small way by appeasement and incompetence of the signatories of the ToV.

There would have been no WW2 if they simply held Germany to it's terms. But they didn't.

Many survivors actually died in the weeks immediately following liberation because their bodies were so weakened and unable to digest standard military rations.

There was the additional problem of having no home for many of the victims to return to, so people ended up in DP camps for some time. The camps helped build (or rebuild) a sense of a community while they waited for a permanent place to call home. The home many yearned for was the new Israel : never again would they not have a country of their own.

How many refugees did Ireland lt in, or how much aid did we send to victims, from this agriculture rich country? Zero?

😁😁 Yeh, turning a blind eye to them buying arms and industrial equipment from US/British etc firms sending the British royals over for a visit and receiving them in the US was really 'trying their best'.

The bombing of German cities happened after British cities, and indeed Belfast were bombed first, and many refugees had arrived from the continent etc.

How many refugees did Ireland let in, or how much aid did we send to starving victims before or after Dev commisserated on the death of Hitler, who set up the extermination camps? Zero?

It was not prosecuted as a war crime at the time. Do not forget Dresden was a major transportation and communication hub supporting the Eastern Front, as well as a center for the German war machine housing multiple factories. It happened years after after the Sept '40 to May '41 Blitz in the UK, when German bombs killed approx. 40,000 to 43,500 civilians, with another 139,000 people seriously injured, and over 2 million homes destroyed.

Not saying it was right, but if you were in one of the affected or invaded countries ( inc many of the neutral countris Germany invaded), the thinking to shorten the war - and the toll in the extermination camps - was to do whatever it took to shorten the war. "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind".

Which it did. German morale collapsed and its military industries were affected etc

..